Message ID | 20220111174805.223732-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | mfd/extcon/regulators: max77843: add dtschema/bindings | expand |
On 11/01/2022 18:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Hi, > > The max77843 shares some parts with max77693 but it lacked bindings. All > its compatibles were undocumented. Add basic bindings for max77843, > matching existing devicetree. These are not complete bindings, but > rather reverse-engineered to match current state. > > I do not have access to device with MAX77843, so if anyone else > volunteers to be the bindings maintainer, please join. > > Changes since v1 > ================ > 1. MFD: Use absolute path to schemas. > 2. Regulator: mention all allowed properties, > additionalProperties=false, add min/max values for voltages and > current, don't use patternProperties when not needed. > 3. extcon: Use absolute path to schemas. > > Dependencies > ============ > 1. Patch 1/5 (dts): nothing depends on it, sending here so Rob's automatic > checker won't complain about DTS. > I will take it via Samsung SoC tree. > > 2. The patch 4/5 (mfd bindings) depends on regulator and extcon, so they > should come together (2+3+4+5). > Dear Lee, This patchset was reviewed and there are no outstanding issues. Could you pick up patches 2-5 (skipping DTS patch) via MFD tree? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Sun, 06 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/01/2022 18:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The max77843 shares some parts with max77693 but it lacked bindings. All > > its compatibles were undocumented. Add basic bindings for max77843, > > matching existing devicetree. These are not complete bindings, but > > rather reverse-engineered to match current state. > > > > I do not have access to device with MAX77843, so if anyone else > > volunteers to be the bindings maintainer, please join. > > > > Changes since v1 > > ================ > > 1. MFD: Use absolute path to schemas. > > 2. Regulator: mention all allowed properties, > > additionalProperties=false, add min/max values for voltages and > > current, don't use patternProperties when not needed. > > 3. extcon: Use absolute path to schemas. > > > > Dependencies > > ============ > > 1. Patch 1/5 (dts): nothing depends on it, sending here so Rob's automatic > > checker won't complain about DTS. > > I will take it via Samsung SoC tree. > > > > 2. The patch 4/5 (mfd bindings) depends on regulator and extcon, so they > > should come together (2+3+4+5). > > > Dear Lee, > > This patchset was reviewed and there are no outstanding issues. Could > you pick up patches 2-5 (skipping DTS patch) via MFD tree? Are the subsystem maintainers not going to review/ack?
On 07/02/2022 10:33, Lee Jones wrote: > On Sun, 06 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 11/01/2022 18:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The max77843 shares some parts with max77693 but it lacked bindings. All >>> its compatibles were undocumented. Add basic bindings for max77843, >>> matching existing devicetree. These are not complete bindings, but >>> rather reverse-engineered to match current state. >>> >>> I do not have access to device with MAX77843, so if anyone else >>> volunteers to be the bindings maintainer, please join. >>> >>> Changes since v1 >>> ================ >>> 1. MFD: Use absolute path to schemas. >>> 2. Regulator: mention all allowed properties, >>> additionalProperties=false, add min/max values for voltages and >>> current, don't use patternProperties when not needed. >>> 3. extcon: Use absolute path to schemas. >>> >>> Dependencies >>> ============ >>> 1. Patch 1/5 (dts): nothing depends on it, sending here so Rob's automatic >>> checker won't complain about DTS. >>> I will take it via Samsung SoC tree. >>> >>> 2. The patch 4/5 (mfd bindings) depends on regulator and extcon, so they >>> should come together (2+3+4+5). >>> >> Dear Lee, >> >> This patchset was reviewed and there are no outstanding issues. Could >> you pick up patches 2-5 (skipping DTS patch) via MFD tree? > > Are the subsystem maintainers not going to review/ack? > Would be nice to have them, but maybe since these are dt-bindings maybe they were skipped? Or maybe it was the end-of-year holidays? I can resend hoping it will trigger more acks. Do you wish me to resend? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Mon, 07 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/02/2022 10:33, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Sun, 06 Feb 2022, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > >> On 11/01/2022 18:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The max77843 shares some parts with max77693 but it lacked bindings. All > >>> its compatibles were undocumented. Add basic bindings for max77843, > >>> matching existing devicetree. These are not complete bindings, but > >>> rather reverse-engineered to match current state. > >>> > >>> I do not have access to device with MAX77843, so if anyone else > >>> volunteers to be the bindings maintainer, please join. > >>> > >>> Changes since v1 > >>> ================ > >>> 1. MFD: Use absolute path to schemas. > >>> 2. Regulator: mention all allowed properties, > >>> additionalProperties=false, add min/max values for voltages and > >>> current, don't use patternProperties when not needed. > >>> 3. extcon: Use absolute path to schemas. > >>> > >>> Dependencies > >>> ============ > >>> 1. Patch 1/5 (dts): nothing depends on it, sending here so Rob's automatic > >>> checker won't complain about DTS. > >>> I will take it via Samsung SoC tree. > >>> > >>> 2. The patch 4/5 (mfd bindings) depends on regulator and extcon, so they > >>> should come together (2+3+4+5). > >>> > >> Dear Lee, > >> > >> This patchset was reviewed and there are no outstanding issues. Could > >> you pick up patches 2-5 (skipping DTS patch) via MFD tree? > > > > Are the subsystem maintainers not going to review/ack? > > > > Would be nice to have them, but maybe since these are dt-bindings maybe > they were skipped? Agreed, not required, but nice to have to avoid possible conflict. > Or maybe it was the end-of-year holidays? > I can resend hoping it will trigger more acks. Do you wish me to resend? That shouldn't be necessary. I'll give the guys a little while to protest/ack, then I'll merge.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 10:47:00AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 07/02/2022 10:33, Lee Jones wrote: > > Are the subsystem maintainers not going to review/ack? > Would be nice to have them, but maybe since these are dt-bindings maybe > they were skipped? Or maybe it was the end-of-year holidays? You've been sending out a large number of very similar serieses, each of which is going through multiple revisions - it's hard to keep track of what's been reviewed, what's in a state where it's useful to review > I can resend hoping it will trigger more acks. Do you wish me to resend? It's probably going to add more noise, on the other hand some things might've been dropped on the floor due to the similarity and whatnot.